Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southern Pines council continues Hunt Cliff rezoning after residents raise traffic, wildlife and HOA concerns
Summary
After a three‑hour hearing and extensive public comment, the Town Council continued consideration of the Hunt Cliff conditional‑zoning request (Z‑07‑24) to April 8. Neighbors pressed concerns about traffic on East Indiana Avenue, wildlife and erosion, the status of access easements and how HOA architectural review would apply; staff and the applicant agreed to return with clearer architecture, tree‑save and title/easement information.
The Town of Southern Pines Council voted to continue consideration of a conditional‑zoning rezoning known as Hunt Cliff (file Z‑07‑24) to its April 8 regular meeting after residents voiced traffic, wildlife, architectural‑review and easement concerns.
Planning staff told the council the application covers about 4.13 acres on East Indiana Avenue and now proposes 11 dwelling units in total, with the mix of detached single‑family and duplexes to be set by the applicant. Planning Director BJ Grieve said staff and the applicant put 25 conditions into the record and recommended approval to the council, subject to resolution of a handful of wording items. Grieve also described the site history (platting and prior approvals dating to 1963, 1981 and a 2011 conditional permit) and the complications created by pending state legislation. "Staff's recommendation is another continuance because it gets us to June," Grieve said during an earlier discussion about related ordinance work. (Grieve later recommended the council get more clarity about architecture, tree‑save and HOA voting mechanics before final action on Z‑07‑24.)
Neighbors and the Hunt Cliff homeowners association raised several concerns during the public hearing. Shannon Smith, president of the HOA, said title and covenants dating to the early plats gave current HOA structures rights and approval requirements and asked the council to ensure their approval processes would be respected. Resident Marco Rotting told the council he has difficulty exiting his driveway on East Indiana in peak traffic and urged a traffic plan before any rezoning: "I think it's premature to make any decision on a zone change without having a proper traffic plan in place." Other residents raised erosion and stormwater concerns on the sloping southeast corner of the site and argued the proposed density and tree clearing would conflict with the town's 2040 comprehensive‑plan guidance for the area.
The applicant, represented by Jeremy Sparrow of Longitude Planning Group, said the project would preserve a 10‑foot perimeter buffer (undisturbed except for specifically required stormwater work), provide at least 35% open space, meet required fire and street turning radii and comply with local stormwater and erosion controls during site‑plan review. Sparrow said the applicants had limited the allowable heated living area per unit and proposed low‑profile, one‑and‑a‑half‑story architecture to match the area's character. He also said a red‑cockaded woodpecker habitat study had been completed for the site.
On access, staff reported the applicant's attorney submitted a title/easement analysis and staff's review concluded it was "more likely than not" that a perpetual easement exists across the neighboring tract, but staff urged the council to ask the applicant for additional documentation and clarity because an adverse civil determination could halt development. Council members said they were uncomfortable approving a conditional‑zoning district while leaving unresolved (1) how the applicant and the existing HOA will coordinate architectural review and voting, (2) whether the access easement is secure, and (3) detailed tree‑save/wildlife protections and the actual condition of the 10‑foot buffer where vegetation is sparse.
Council therefore asked staff and the applicant to return at the April meeting with: renderings or agreed architectural images, clear documentation about HOA architectural‑review authority and voting mechanics (or evidence of a plan to resolve them), and specific tree‑save and wildlife information for the site and buffer. The council voted to continue the public hearing to the April 8 regular business meeting; the motion carried by voice vote.
Next steps: the applicant may continue to refine the submitted conditions and will bring architectural images, any updated title/easement evidence and tree/wildlife clarifications to the April 8 packet. If the parties cannot reach agreement on HOA review and access issues, council members indicated they would still act in April but wanted those questions clearly framed for decision.
